A Quickie on Phil 2

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Phi 2:6-8)

In looking at this passage, there are basically two views put foward:

1. Jesus, being a creature (and thus inferior to the Father), didn't strive to be the Father's equal but instead obeyed the Father to the point of death.

2. Jesus, being by nature Divine, put aside His equality with the Father and voluntarily humbled Himself before Him by taking on the form of a bondservant and becoming obedient to the point of death.

Questions to consider:
1. Jesus became obedient to whom? From this, it seems it is talking about Jesus submitting Himself to the Father and becoming obedient... even to the point of death.

2. How did Jesus "empty" Himself? He took on the form of a bondservant. His act of "emptying" was not by subtraction but by the addition of something else -a human nature.

3. Given all of this and the surrounding context, which option above fits? 1 or 2?

This is the question, for the Jehovah's Witnesses will insist upon #1 but will be unable to demonstrate it from context. Why? Here are the preceding verses.

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
(Phi 2:1-5)

Paul exhorts them to unity through humility -through putting aside self and humbly serving others. Now, which of the options fits what Paul is saying? Is Paul really saying that we, being by nature inferior to others (less human), should not try to be as human as they are, but should act in step with our inferior nature and obey them? No. That isn't humility, and that isn't what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that we, being by nature equal with one another, should put aside all notions of this inherent equality, put aside any competition, and should humbly serve one another. Option #2 is clearly consistent with the context, and option #1 makes no sense in it.

Hence, we are to have the mind Christ had when, though in eternity past (presently existing in eternity past the form of God, having all the attributes of Deity) has equality with the Father, voluntarily (yes, it is something the Son did voluntarily) humbled Himself before the Father, took on a human nature, and served as the Redeemer to the point of death.

One might try to argue that the humiliation in the example with Christ is a humiliation before us, humans (and He did, in a sense), but even that doesn't make sense with Paul's point. Is Paul trying to tell the believers to not try to be greater than they are but to instead server people beneath them? That isn't in Paul's exhortation, sorry to say. Paul is just telling us to put aside competitiveness, put aside self, to renounce self-interest and self-rights, and think of others as more important. This is what Jesus did when he voluntarily made Himself a subject to the Father, a suffering servant, and for our salvation.

Paul's use of Christ as an illustration in this way makes no sense unless Paul sees Jesus as the eternal Divine Son, of the same essence as the Father.

Falling down in Revelation

The image of "falling down" is used a handful of times in Revelation. John "fell down" a few times in Revelation. Twice he did before an angel, and both times he was rebuked.

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(Rev 19:10)

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
(Rev 22:8-9)

John sees the angel, is tinged with emotions of fear, deep reverence, and awe, and responds by falling down before him. In both cases, the angel sternly rebukes John. The responses are almost identical. They clearly view this act of "falling down" as a sign of deep reverence and worship. The angel, in both cases, clearly viewed this as something to be directed only toward God. In each case, the angel says in his rebuke, "Worship God."

The whole notion of "falling down" with various descriptors is used repeatedly in Revelation. In every instance, it is clearly referring to deep reverence and worship.

The various phrases used in Revelation:

"fell at his feed as though dead." (Rev 1:17)
"fell down before the Lamb" (Rev 5:8)
"fell down and worshiped." (Rev 5:14)
"fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God" (Rev 7:11)
"fell on their faces and worshipped God" (Rev 11:16)
"fell down and worshiped God" (Rev 19:4)
"fell down at his feet to worship him" (Rev 19:10)
"fell down to worship at the feet" (Rev 22:8)

The first three are referring to Jesus as the object. The one in Rev 1:17 is the other time John fell down, and it was before Jesus. Did Jesus rebuke Him? No. He comforted Him and referred to Himself as the "first and the last," a title Jehovah used of Himself in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12.

In chapter 5, the elders "fell down before the Lamb" and praised Him. They, again, "fell down and worshiped" a few verses later. No qualification, no rebuke given. Jesus is worshiped, and it is appropriate. A Jehovah's Witness might point out "ahh, but it doesn't say 'worshipped Jesus.'" Or a Witness might say, "In those other places, it doesn't say 'and worshipped.'" Does it have to? Not if you look at the context of Rev 5 and the obvious connotation of this act and imagery in Revelation. When the elders fell down, what they did in the next verses IS worship.

There is not an absence of data showing that Jesus is equal with the Father, in nature, or that Jesus is worshipped. However, for the Witness, there is a presupposition that will not let them hear the text speak. It goes like this: "It is impossible for Jesus to be Deity because Jesus is not the Father. The one God, Jehovah, is unitarian and there is no other possibility."

I will post something more on Revelation 5 at some point, hopefully soon. Take a look at verses 6-14. Now, why doesn't it say "and worshipped" when the elders fell down before the Lamb? John doesn't have to say it. They did it in the verses that followed. They sang worship to Him with those beautiful words.